This one was a struggle for me to get through. A lot of the text seemed disorganized, vague, and sometimes even random. Although some of this confusion was likely due to the many historical and philosophical references made that I had difficulty understanding despite the footnotes, which a reader of Nietzsche’s time would probably grasp […]

Reading this text reminded me a lot of the beginning of first term – a deceptively small book filled with unfamiliar phrases laid out in a seemingly order-less fashion. In any case, I feel nervous writing this blog post, because I’m not sure if I really understand most of this text, let alone have opinions about it. However, after the lecture today, I feel much less unprepared to write. In the interest of not appearing as confused as I actually am, I’m going to talk about some of the aphorisms that…read more

Merry Brain-diseases-of-sickly-web-spinners-mas everybody, and a happy New Year! Goodness, this book is making me feel so festive.

Neeche takes a pretty highbrow stance in Twilight of the Idols, saying how many other ‘intellectuals’ are deluded. Yet considering his views on the ‘real world’ are to not over-analyze life and to basically take what you see at sensory face value, they aren’t very intellectual sounding. His version of progress, as shown in How the “True World” Finally Became a Fiction is also to abandon the delusions of celestial or intellectual grandeur that characterize Plato or Christianity. Nieeqcher does not want to elevate humanity or (in the case of Rousseau) necessarily regress it, which also does not seem very intellectual. If you’re going to be an Important Philosopher, at least say something exciting like everyone’s been living in a metaphorical cave!

Nicherr criticizes Socrates, but isn’t he essential doing what Socrates did? questioning values that most would contentedly leave unquestioned. If there is a difference to Socrates’ dialectic and what Neeziche is doing, I’d like to know what it is.

Netichee was also ahead of his time – though maybe not in regards to his views on women.It seems detrimental when discussing his philosophies to bring up his persistent misogyny, but I wonder why someone who says how “reality shows us a captivating treasury of types” (28) would tar all women with the same brush.